The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions and debates than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.

What makes an action immoral is human judgement of the action (or, for the religious folk- God's judgement of the action). Until someone actually decided to label a particular action is moral or immoral, it was nothing more than an action. Somewhere along the line, people started being concerned with whether what they do is right or wrong. I don't know when or how this happened, nor where the idea of morality originated from.
The way we know whether or not a coice, action, or behavior is immoral is through reason and logic. Hm, does that mean I think morality is objective? Or subjective? I'm having one of those mental lapses here where I forget how I made the two easily distinguishable from one another and now I'm confusing myself.

ok an action is immoral if through a prosess of rational consideration (in my view the Catagorical Imperative) as well as the use of rational training (see my thoughts on formal education) it is understood to be undesirable as a maxim (again catagorical imperative..if you want more of an explination on this let me know)

captain_crunk wrote:What makes an action immoral is human judgement of the action (or, for the religious folk- God's judgement of the action). Until someone actually decided to label a particular action is moral or immoral, it was nothing more than an action. Somewhere along the line, people started being concerned with whether what they do is right or wrong. I don't know when or how this happened, nor where the idea of morality originated from.
The way we know whether or not a coice, action, or behavior is immoral is through reason and logic. Hm, does that mean I think morality is objective? Or subjective? I'm having one of those mental lapses here where I forget how I made the two easily distinguishable from one another and now I'm confusing myself.

That is a question that we keep asking but we
never seem to get satisfactory answers.

It's not what you know that makes
you smart, it's knowing what you don't know.

captain_crunk wrote:What makes an action immoral is human judgement of the action (or, for the religious folk- God's judgement of the action). Until someone actually decided to label a particular action is moral or immoral, it was nothing more than an action. Somewhere along the line, people started being concerned with whether what they do is right or wrong. I don't know when or how this happened, nor where the idea of morality originated from.
The way we know whether or not a coice, action, or behavior is immoral is through reason and logic. Hm, does that mean I think morality is objective? Or subjective? I'm having one of those mental lapses here where I forget how I made the two easily distinguishable from one another and now I'm confusing myself.

I don't know whether morality is based upon
emotional or rational thinking. I know moral
standards can't rely solely on peoples' feelings,
but I also know that it can't rely totally on
peoples' rational thinking either. I don't
think morality is based on either one of those two
extremes. It is part of a deeper spectrum
which is difficult to research.

It's not what you know that makes
you smart, it's knowing what you don't know.

To begin with, an act is immoral if it violates a person's right to life. What act violates this? Murder. Even rape can be seen as violating a person's right to life because it can destroy lives fairly easily. It is immoral because it does not go by the objective standard: Life.

Another act, if it violates a person's liberty. Slavery would be the major act of immorality against this one because it is not only violating a person's liberty, but one again, the objective standard: Life.

Acts that violate the pursuit of one's happiness (RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST. Not mindless self-indulgence. Make that clear now.) The big immoral act here are the governmental regulations against people...against businesses...and against freedom of choice. But one again, it is violating life.

When it comes down to it, every immoral act is made immoral because it is violating an individual's life.

I do not care if you're starving. You have no right to steal someone else's private property. I have the choice to do so. You do not have the moral right.

In situations of killing someone to save your own life...such as being standard in the ocean in a boat that cannot hold both of you...These situations are horribly hypothetical...I would say you still have no right or moral right to kill the other person to survive. That's why the person who does is often thrown in jail for it whether or not it was for survival. As for situations of self-defense against someone trying to kill you...have the the right to protect yourself. Once force is initiated by one side, then all morality is thrown out of the window because it is then up to either kill or be killed. Self-Defense is a legitimate situation to kill someone as long as that is what they are trying to do. You should not kill someone if they're just trying to steal your wallet.

When a man declares: "There are no blacks and whites [in morality]" he is making a psychological confession, and what he means is: "I am unwilling to be wholly good—and please don't regard me as wholly evil!" - Ayn Rand

This is a very hard question to answer. I, for one,
don't think the action is moral because stealing from someone else is a violation of someone else's rights.
Of course, I don't think I could totally condemn
someone who is trying to keep a family member alive.
Say a mother and a daughter are homeless, and the mother is doing everything to her daughter alive?
Would stealing be immoral? I know this act would not be considered right, but I'm not sure if it could be considered wrong if she is doing it for her daughter's life, as long as she wouldn't do it
in a normal situation. I know that morality sometimes
flies out the window when you're in a life or
death situation. I'd never want to steal, even if
I am starving, because it does violate other
peoples' rights. I'm taking things that belong to other people--things that don't belong to me.
I don't know how I would live if I had to feed
starving children, but I wouldn't want to resort
to something I would regret later in life.

It's not what you know that makes
you smart, it's knowing what you don't know.

This is a good question, but it is very hard to answer, because the answer depends on your personal moral philosophy. Each moral philosophy has its own criteria for determining which actions are immoral and which ones are moral.

David Hume, along with modern psychological science, shows that reason alone is not capable of motivating action. Reason can only lay out the facts- it is the sentiment, or empathic reaction that motivates the will in making a decision. Action and decision only occurs with a cognitive acknowledgment of the facts and choices (reason), coupled with a desire (empathic reaction)

An action is immoral if and only if it exhibits a lack of fully developed empathic concern. All universal moral laws are an attempt at explaining this natural process with reason. With reason alone, though, all you have are facts. It is the emotional side that actually does the motivating. Even if you try to use reason alone to make moral distinctions, all these universal laws do is lay out the facts. It is your empathic reaction that motivates you to making a choice, whether you realize it or not.[/i]

philoreaderguy wrote:
Also, I think an act is immoral if it violates another
person's rights. For instance, to use another person
(without their consent)for selfish reasons would
probably be immoral.

how can that be a basis for right an wrong? I mean everyone's "right's are going to be violate someone else's rights. If the law was based off that then everything would come down to a war of rights. it would be utter chaos and confusion.

I believe there has to be an absolute set of morals out there, but I'm not sure in which direction it lies. I think that morals today are maily based off what is good for the majority of people. for instance, a leader would go to war to defend himself and his people. by going to war he's killing, but it for the greater good. even though war is infringing on other's rights, we justify it by saying it's for the best. but who get's to determine what's for the best? I guess that's kind of the foundation of democracy, the best is what the majority of people vote it is. so ultimately without and absolute set of morals, right and wrong comes down to the majority rules.

This question is difficult to answer for two main reasons that I see.
Morality is individual to the situation, and to the individual person as well.
If one is asking if the act of stealing food to feed a starving family member immoral, then I perceive it as situational.
The question however was posed in a general manner.
If one takes fruit from the fruit stand, is the taking of the food without paying in fact "stealing"?
Then is the person who fed the starving family member immoral? Is the starving person committing an immoral act by eating the "stolen" fruit? [/b]